Do Dems do do-over elections?

Many Democrats, and even some Republicans, have a shaky grasp of the need for political organizations to abide by the rules for the sake of unity and integrity. In particular, when the national party organizations set explicit rules in advance and then the states flaunt those rules, someone will end up suffering. Hillary Clinton is lobbying hard to get a full slate of delegates seated from Michigan (where she was the only candidate who ran) and Florida, both of whose primary elections have been voided by the Democratic National Committee, because they were held earlier than party rules allowed. (I think they have pills to control "premature elections" nowadays. )

It is total chaos, and one can only imagine what kind of brouhaha may erupt at the convention in Denver this August 25-28. This situation could not be sweeter for Republicans, as the economy tanks and McCain tries to get caught up with remedial reading of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations.

The Washington Post reports that Florida Democrats have called for a mail-in "do-over primary" in June. I can't believe how brazen many Democrats in Florida have been in blaming the Republican-controlled legislature for their predicament, even though the early date was originally proposed by a Democrat, and a large majority of them voted for the measure last year. The question of who is going to pay for it validates my point that the general public should not shoulder the burden of paying for the nomination process of political parties -- period.

Moral of the story: Do-over elections are inherently problematic and never resolve the underlying dispute over fairness.

My hat's in the ring

According to the News Virginian, I am challenging incumbent Staunton Republican Committee chairwoman Anne Taetzsch in the upcoming mass meeting elections to be held on March 29. Yes, it is true. (There was a potential scheduling conflict with Opening Day in D.C. that weekend, but I couldn't get tickets.)